a monetary economy has long been understood by those who have studied it to have properties that cannot be analyzed using the tools of Arrow-Debreu style equilibrium modeling
I’ve laid out the “Hayek-Mises” considerations which establish this fact as a matter of logic to macroeconomists like Stephen Williamson and Nick Rowe. Disturbingly, the run of academic macroeconomists seem to have no professional interest in anything other than “interpreting” or adding new epicycles on the old, failed DSGE models. Whistling past the graveyard, Williamson airily dismisses any identification of anomalies in the DSGE framework — such as those identified by Frydman, Goldberg, Laidler, Buiter, Issing, Woodford, Caballero, and Blanchard — as ‘crackers’. My view is that general public deserves to know about this — if a group of scientists continue to foist a failed and discredited research program on the polity, in service only to its own professional interests, while continuing to do grievous damage to the polity, then the wider public has every right to be told the truth about what is going on in academia, and the fact of deep scientific failure and anomaly in mainstream macroeconomics is no longer merely a private matter among members of a closed and self-serving professional guild.
Sunlight, as they say, is often the best disinfectant.